web analytics

Tag: Christian problem (CP)

Categories
Friedrich Nietzsche

Postscript

I would like to add to what I said yesterday.

While it is true that suppressing the errors of both Wagner’s and Nietzsche’s worldviews, while assimilating their insights, produces a Hitlerian synthesis (by which I mean the critical view of Judeo-Christianity that the Führer confessed to his closest friends), the Wagner/Nietzsche thesis-antithesis was, and remains, extremely asymmetrical.

In my post yesterday I mentioned two German biographers of Nietzsche. I was referring to Curt Paul Janz and Werner Ross, whose voluminous treatises on the German philosopher’s life I own and are boring as hell, unless the reader has a passionate interest in Nietzsche’s tragic life (as I have). So, for those new to the subject, I recommend the more lyrical prose of an Austrian biographer of Nietzsche I have already linked to several times on this site. The Spanish translation of Werner Ross’ book, by the way, I read it all in 1995:

If there is one thing that emerges from all these biographies that I have read and conscientiously weighed up, it is the revelation that Christianity condemned Nietzsche, to use the poet-philosopher’s words, to a seventh solitude: absolute solitude that over the years annihilated him psychologically. That’s the tremendous asymmetry I was talking about, compared to the much famed and incredibly beloved Wagner by Europeans in general and Germans in particular. See for example this video about the famed composer:

One German gets all the glory and the other is condemned to the extent that nobody wants to listen to him, to the point of losing his mind. And it all has to do, of course, with the fact that the Aryans were Christians in the 19th century. And even in the 21st century the racial right loves those who echo Wagner’s anti-Semitism, but those who also blame Christianity are ignored.

As only a Hitlerian synthesis between Wagner and Nietzsche would save the white race, the Aryan man, still clinging to Christian ethics, is lost. He is like Siegfried whose potion made him lose his ancestral memory to the extent of betraying Brunhild, as we will see in my post tomorrow.

The dialectical synthesis I was talking about yesterday could only be realised if a substantial percentage of JQ-conscious Aryans were also conscious of the Christian Question. But there aren’t, and on the racial right I see no willingness whatsoever to put the religion of our parents in the dock.

Categories
Friedrich Nietzsche Richard Wagner

Dialectic synthesis

On the eleventh of this month, I said that what moved me to present the story of Richard Wagner’s tetralogy was to try to elucidate a little more of Savitri Devi’s point of view, insofar as I consider her book, together with my footnotes, to be a kind of manifesto of The West’s Darkest Hour.

I’m still four entries short of completing the tetralogy’s story (the penultimate, which deals with Siegfried’s death, will be the longest in the series) according to the Argentine publisher who summarised the story when I was a child. I’ve already taken several images from those illustrated booklets, as can be seen here, here, here and here. But I would like, at once, to put down in writing some of my conclusions even before I finish translating the series.

I have just reviewed my thick biographical volumes on Friedrich Nietzsche, written by two German scholars. Nietzsche apparently lost his sanity on the last day of 1888. It is fascinating to note that his last essay before losing his mind was ‘Nietzsche contra Wagner’. Recall that, years before, Wagner and Nietzsche had been great friends. These are my conclusions:

Wagner was absolutely right to consider Jewry a parasite; and the later Nietzsche, i.e. the Nietzsche of the last months of 1888, was absolutely wrong to hate anti-Semites. But Wagner was completely wrong in believing that it was enough to baptise the Jews to make them good. For example, when for his last opera, Parsifal, he was assigned a Jewish conductor, Wagner rebelled and said that he would only accept him if he was first baptised. Such a stance reminds me of the American E. Michael Jones, although Jones is a Catholic and Wagner was a Protestant.

On the other hand, Nietzsche was right to condemn Judeo-Christianity as the key factor in the decline of Aryan culture, as we can see in this quote written before his upheaval. Precisely because of this, Nietzsche began to distance himself from Wagner when he began to see that the composer was making concessions to Christian morality.

The dialectic synthesis, so to speak, between the grave rights and grave wrongs of both Wagner and Nietzsche, provides a picture in which the contradictions of both are resolved. Resolving the contradictions of both positions is what I attempt on this site: unlike the latter Nietzsche we must be aware of the JQ, but, also, unlike Wagner we must be aware of the CQ.

All this has to do with Savitri’s book because, if our understanding of the cause of the dark hour isn’t perfect (Savitri wasn’t as anti-Christian as Nietzsche), we won’t be able to save the Aryan man. We will end up deceived by unscrupulous rascals like those who deceived Siegfried and eventually killed him. There is more I would like to say about the Wagnerian tetralogy but for tonight the above is enough.

(Incidentally, this image also appears in one of the booklets I used to leaf through as a child, which I still have in my library after so many decades of leafing through them for the first time.)

Categories
Dominion (book)

Dominion, 3

Or:

How the Woke monster originated

Eusebius claims in his Ecclesiastical History that, as a young man, Origen secretly paid a physician to surgically castrate him: a claim which affected Origen’s reputation for centuries, as demonstrated by these 15th-century depictions of Origen castrating himself.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

In what follows I will comment on some notable passages from Tom Holland’s Dominion chapter ‘Belief AD 177: Lyon’. For the previous two instalments of this series (a series that I put on hold for a few months due to the huge task of proofreading Savitri Devi’s book), see here and here.

Ignatius (35-109 c.e.) was one of the church fathers. When on page 114 Holland wrote, ‘while travelling through Asia Minor on his way to Rome, Ignatius, a bishop from Syria, had proudly defined it as katholikos: “universal”,’ I thought that it is essential to know the history of Christianity. It is an open book leading us, page after page, to the x-ray of the white soul: from the racial pride and tribalism of the Aryan man we see in the Spartans and the republican Romans to a subject who, in the time of the Roman Empire, lived immersed in a katholikos or universal melting pot of the various races conquered by Rome, including the Jews. On the next page Holland says:

Naturally, not sharing Marcion’s contemptuous attitude towards Jewish scripture, Irenaeus made sure to reinstate it at the head of his own canon. It was, so he declared, essential reading for all Christians: ‘a field in which hidden treasure is revealed and explained by the cross of Christ’… Alongside Luke’s gospel, he included John’s, and the two others most widely accepted as authoritative: one attributed to Matthew, a tax-collector summoned by Jesus to follow him, and the second to Mark, the reputed founder of the church in Alexandria. Compared to these, so Irenaeus declared, all other accounts of Christ’s life and teachings were but ‘ropes woven out of sand’.

A very common thing in white nationalism is to blame the Jews as the subversive tribe they indeed are, but leaving whites off the hook. In real history, a history that nationalists have never wanted to read (say, those written by William Pierce and Arthur Kemp), we see imperial lust, similar to what the US government is now doing with Russia and China, as the culprit. And of the pagan world just before the Judeo-Christians took over we can say exactly the same:

In 212, an edict was issued that would have warmed the old Stoic’s heart. By its terms, all free men across the vast expanse of the empire were granted Roman citizenship. Its author, a thuggish Caesar by the name of Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus, was a living embodiment of the increasingly cosmopolitan character of the Roman world. The son of an African nobleman, he had been proclaimed emperor in Britain and was nicknamed Caracalla—‘Hoodie’—after his fondness for Gallic fashions.

This granting citizenship to all peoples of the empire reminds me that, when I was a child watching American and English films, I identified American or English with the white race. It was within my lifetime that I saw how a once proud race began to see universalism as normal to the extent of importing millions of non-whites into their respective countries. But we need to know when this madness really began.

The interest that many Greeks took in Jewish teachings, and that many Jews took in philosophy, had always been circumscribed by the prescriptions of the Mosaic covenant. Christianity, though, provided a matrix in which the Jewish and the Greek were able to mingle as well as meet. No one demonstrated this to more fruitful effect than Origen [pictured above—Ed.]. A devotion to Christianity’s inheritance from the Jews was manifest in all he wrote. Not only did he go to the effort of learning Hebrew from a Jewish teacher, but the Jewish people themselves he hailed as family: as the Church’s ‘little sister’, or else ‘the brother of the bride’. Marcion’s sneer that orthodox Christians were Jew-lovers was not one that Origen would necessarily have disputed. Certainly, he did more to embed the great body of Jewish scripture within the Christian canon, and to enshrine it as an ‘Old Testament’, than anyone before or since.

While the dynamics of Jewish infiltration of Aryan culture have not changed since the days of the Roman Empire when it was still pagan, what Western nationalists fail to see is that Christianity was at the very heart of this subversion.

Jewish the great mansion of the Old Testament may have been; but the surest method for exploring it was Greek. ‘Whatever men have rightly said, no matter who or where, is the property of us Christians.’ That God had spoken to the Greeks as well as to the Jews was not a theory that originated with Origen. Just as Paul, in his correspondence, had approvingly cited the Stoic concept of conscience, so had many Christians since found in philosophy authentic glimmerings of the divine.

Speaking about Savitri Devi’s book that we recently translated for my Daybreak Press, on Monday I commented in the comments section that, although she admires Hitler, Carolyn Yeager’s sympathy for Christianity clouds her understanding of National Socialism. Something similar could be said of Tom Holland’s sympathy for Christianity. Writing about Greek philosophers and Jewish scholars, in the following passages of Holland’s prose we can read between the lines that in these times started big time the utter imbecility that eventually received the grotesque name of ‘theology’:

Just as traditions of textual inquiry honed in Alexandria had helped Origen to elucidate the complexities of Jewish scripture, so did he use philosophy to shed light on an even more profound puzzle: the nature of God himself. [page 123]

No one, after Origen’s labours in the service of his faith, would be able to charge that Christians appealed only to ‘the ignorant, the stupid, the unschooled’. The potency of this achievement, in a society that took for granted the value of education as an indicator of status, was immense. [page 124]

Origen had created a matrix for the propagation of philosophical concepts that would prove to have momentous reach. Far from damaging his reputation, his refusal to behave in the manner of a conventional philosopher ended up only enhancing his fame. Turning sixty, Origen could reflect with pride on a career so influential that even the mother of an emperor, intrigued by his celebrity, had once summoned him to instruct her in the nature of God.

Such fame, though, was as likely to stoke hostility as admiration. The age was a treacherous one. The violence brought by Caracalla to the streets of Alexandria had been an ominous portent of even darker times ahead. In the decades that followed, sorrows had come not as single spies, but in battalions. Caracalla himself, murdered while relieving himself on campaign, had been just one of a succession of emperors slain in a blizzard of assassinations and civil wars…

The gods, it seemed, were angry. The correct religiones were manifestly being neglected. The fault, in the wake of Caracalla’s mass grant of citizenship, lay not just in Rome, but in the empire as a whole. Accordingly, early in 250, a formal decree was issued that everyone—with the sole exception of the Jews [emphasis by Ed.!]—offer up sacrifice to the gods. Disobedience was equated with treason; and the punishment for treason was death.

For the first time, Christians found themselves confronted by legislation that directly obliged them to choose between their lives and their faith. Many chose to save their skins—but many did not. Among those arrested was Origen. Although put in chains and racked, he refused to recant. Spared execution, he was released after days of brutal treatment a broken man. He never recovered. A year or so later, the aged scholar was dead of the sufferings inflicted on him by his torturers. [pages 125-126]

The following pages are also very elucidating. Let us remember that the defeated Carthaginians had such a grudge against Rome that many had begun to take refuge in Judaism. But because of its universalist character, Judeo-Christianity made subversion much easier:

In the summer of 313, Carthage was a city on edge. An ancient rival of Rome for the rule of the western Mediterranean, destroyed by the legions and then—just as Corinth had been—refounded as a Roman colony, its commanding position on the coastline across from Sicily had won for it an undisputed status as the capital of Africa. Like Rome and Alexandria, it had grown to become one of the great centres of Christianity…

In 303, when an imperial edict was issued commanding Christians to hand over their books of scripture or face death, Africa had been at the forefront of resistance to the decree. The provincial authorities, determined to break the Church, had expanded on the edict by commanding that everyone make sacrifice to the gods. [page 127]

A claimant to the rule of Rome named Constantine had marched on the city. There, on the banks of the river Tiber, beside the Milvian Bridge, he had won a decisive victory. His rival had drowned in the river. Constantine, entering the ancient capital, had done so with the head of his defeated enemy held aloft on a spear. Provincial officials from Africa, summoned to meet their new master, had dutifully admired the trophy. Shortly afterwards, as a token of Constantine’s greatness, it had been dispatched to Carthage. [pages 129-130]

The Council of Nicaea

The fusion of theology with Roman bureaucracy at its most controlling resulted in an innovation never before attempted: a declaration of belief that proclaimed itself universal. The sheer number of delegates, drawn from locations ranging from Mesopotamia to Britain, gave to their deliberations a weight that no single bishop or theologian could hope to rival. For the first time, orthodoxy possessed what even the genius of Origen had struggled to provide: a definition of the Christian god that could be used to measure heresy with precision. [page 133]

Never before had a committee authored phrases so far-reaching in their impact [the Nicaean Creed—Ed.]. The long struggle of Christians to articulate the paradox that lay at the heart of their faith, to define how a man tortured to death on a cross could also have been divine, had at last attained an enduring resolution. A creed that still, many centuries after it was written, would continue to join otherwise divided churches, and give substance to the ideal of a single Christian people, had more than met Constantine’s hopes for his council. Only a seasoned imperial administrator could possibly have pulled it off. A century after Caracalla’s grant of citizenship to the entire Roman world, Constantine had hit upon a momentous discovery: that the surest way to join a people as one was to unite them not in common rituals, but in a common belief. [pages 133-134]

What neither Constantine nor the Romans in power suspected, who still carried much of the pagan tolerance in them, is that they infected the souls of the white and mudblood converts to Christianity with the intolerant virus of Judaism: a virus that would eventually infect the whole empire. Here Holland, who we should remember is sympathetic to Christianity, recounts one of the first cases of Jewish intolerance transplanted into the new Judeo-Christian world:

When Donatists stripped a Catholic bishop naked, hauled him to the top of a tower and flung him into a pile of excrement, or tied a necklace of dead dogs around the neck of another, or pulled out the tongue of a third, and cut off his right hand, they were behaving in a manner that might have appeared calculated to baffle the average Roman bureaucrat. [page 135]

Decades on from the deaths of both Caecilian and Donatus, the killings continued, the divisions widened, and the sense of moral certitude on both sides grew ever more entrenched…

Constantine, by accepting Christ as his Lord, had imported directly into the heart of his empire a new, unpredictable and fissile source of power. [page 136]

Categories
Kalki Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Savitri quote

The Führer had, says André Erissaud, ‘the feeling’—I would say, the certainty—that the Christian religion in particular had little to do with truly transcendent values.[1]

However, the whole of Western civilisation is at the same time ‘recent’ and ‘Christian.’ We must never forget this. That didn’t, however, prevent Hitler from admiring Charlemagne: the Sachsenschlüchter or ‘terminator of the Saxons’ as Alfred Rosenberg, Johann von Leers, Heinrich Himmler and a good number of other great dignitaries saw him.

Instead, Hitler saw in him the conqueror with the immense will to power, and above all the first unifier of the German people: the one who, alone at that time, had the idea of the Reich even if he had used the artificial unity of ‘faith’ to impose it, even if this faith was the Christian faith, a foreign faith. It will be remembered that Adolf Hitler insisted on the dissolving action of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world, and that he called it ‘pre-Bolshevism.’ But it doesn’t matter what this faith was (and still is) if it was the cement of a conquering Germanic Empire and, later, the occasion for the whole flowering of art that we know. Insofar as this art is beautiful it presupposes, in any case, a certain knowledge of what is eternal. The Führer thus accepted with respect, as a German heirloom, a replica of the sword of the Emperor of West.[2]

____________

[1] Brissaud: Hitler et l’Ordre Noir, page 111.

[2] Editor’s note: I have been very critical of American white nationalism on my website, but hardly of German National Socialism. It is time to realise that Hitler and his followers weren’t perfect. To win the war you must know what you are fighting against. Both the most populist National Socialists like Goebbels, and today’s white nationalists, emphasised Jewry. But since the Semitic hydra also includes Christianity, Islam and even what happened to the Romans during the Punic Wars, Nietzsche’s ‘Law against Christianity’ alluded to in footnote #187 must be implemented in what we might start calling Kalki’s Reich.

Rosenberg, von Leers and Himmler were closer to the truth on this point than the Führer himself! But their movement failed because, like Savitri, they didn’t fully understand how infinitely toxic everything related to Judeo-Christianity has been, including its secular offshoots. If they had been genuinely wise they would have seen that the Christians on the other side of the Atlantic were their main foe. This means that all these esoteric and archaeological raids looking for the Aryan Grail, where it was not to be found, were a fool’s errand. The Grail is anti-Christianity or, to put it in more positive terms, the transvaluation of all Judeo-Christian values back to Greco-Roman values.

Categories
Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Savitri quote

[…] the rapid disappearance of the sense of the sacred, the resurgence of the technical spirit and, above all, the disordered proliferation of man in inverse proportion to his quality. Also, while knowing that they could only be, in the name of Christian anthropocentrism, his worst adversaries, Adolf Hitler was careful not to attack the churches openly, let alone persecute them.

He did so out of political skill, and also out of fear of depriving the people of an existing faith before another had penetrated deeply enough into their souls to replace it advantageously. This didn’t prevent him from observing that the lifespan of Christianity was over; that the Churches represented nothing more than a ‘hollow, fragile and deceptive religious apparatus’[1] which wasn’t even worth demolishing from the outside since from the inside it was already crumbling. He didn’t believe in a resurrection of the Christian faith. In the German countryside Christianity had always been a veneer, a shell which had kept intact the old piety under it. And it was now a question of reviving and directing the old piety. In the urban masses he saw nothing that revealed any awareness of the sacred. He realised that ‘where everything is dead nothing can be relighted.’[2]

In any case, Christianity was, in his eyes as in ours, nothing but a foreign religion imposed on the Germanic peoples, and fundamentally opposed to their genius. Adolf Hitler despised those men who had been able for so long to content themselves with such childishness as those that the Churches taught the masses. And he was never short of sarcasm when, before those few to whom he knew intimately, he could confess the least popular aspect of his thinking. He spoke of Christianity as ‘an invention of sick brains.’[3]

What he reproached most of all was the fact that Christianity alienated his followers from Nature, that it inculcated in them a contempt for the body and, above all, presented itself to them as the consoling religion par excellence: the religion of the afflicted; of those who are ‘toiled over and burdened’ and don’t have the strength to bear their burden courageously, of those who cannot come to terms with the idea of not seeing their beloved ones again in a naïvely human Hereafter.

Like Nietzsche, he found it to have a whining, servile rotundity about it and considered Christianity inferior to even the most primitive mythologies, which at least integrate man into the cosmos. Inferior to a religion of Nature, ancestors and heroes, he liked to evoke the beauty of the attitude of his followers who, free of hope as well as fear, carried out the most dangerous tasks with detachment. ‘I have,’ he said on December 13, 1941 in the presence of Dr Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg, Terboven and others, ‘six SS divisions composed of men who are indifferent in matters of religion. This doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with a serene soul.’[4]

Here, ‘indifference in matters of religion’ just means indifference to Christianity and, perhaps, to all religious exotericism; certainly not indifference to the sacred. Quite the contrary! Because what the Führer reproached Christianity, and no doubt any religion or philosophy centred on the ‘too human,’ was precisely the absence in it of true piety.

What he reproached them for was their inability to make the sacred penetrate Life, all Life, as in traditional societies. And what he wanted—and, as I shall soon try to show, the SS must have had a great role to play here—was a gradual return of the consciousness of the sacred, at various levels, in all strata of the population. Not a more or less artificial resurgence of the cult of Wotan and Thor (the Divine never assumes again, in the eyes of men, the forms it once abandoned) but a return of Germany and the Germanic world in general, to Tradition, grasped in the Nordic manner in the spirit of the old sagas including those which, like the legend of Parsifal, preserved, under Christian outward appearances, the unchanged values of the race and the imprint of eternal values in the collective unconscious of the race.

He wanted to restore to the German peasant ‘the direct and mysterious apprehension of Nature, the instinctive contact, the communion with the Spirit of the Earth.’ He wanted to scrape off ‘the Christian varnish’ and restore in him ‘the religion of the race.’[5] And, little by little, especially in the immense new ‘living space’ that he dreamed of conquering in the East, to remake from the mass of his people a free peasant-warrior people, as in the old days when the immemorial Odalrecht, the oldest Germanic customary law, regulated the relations of men with each other and their chiefs. It was from the countryside which he knew still lived on, behind a vain set of Christian names and gestures, pagan beliefs from which he intended one day to evangelise the masses in the big cities: the first victims of modern life in whom, in his own words, ‘everything was dead.’

This ‘everything’ meant for him the essential: the capacity of man and especially of the pure-blooded Aryan, to feel both his nothingness as an isolated individual and his immortality as the repository of the virtues of his race. He wanted to restore this sense of the sacred to every German—to every Aryan—in whom it had faded or had been lost over the generations through the superstitions spread by the churches as well as by an increasingly popularised pseudoscience. He knew that this was an arduous and long-term task from which one couldn’t expect spectacular success, but whose preservation of pure blood was the sine qua non of accomplishment because, beyond a certain degree of miscegenation (which is very quickly reached), a people is no longer the same people.

_____________

[1] Rauschning: Hitler m’a dit (op. cit.), p. 69.

[2] Ibid. p. 71.

[3] Libres propos sur la Guerre et la Paix (op. cit.), p. 141.

[4] Ibid., p. 140.

[5] Rauschning: Hitler m’a dit, p. 71.

Categories
Videos

Green v. Jones

Adam Green vs E. Michael Jones – Is Christianity a Jewish Ploy?

Only ten minutes into this debate, I think Green’s point is so accurate that I’m adding this entry even though I still have more than an hour of listening to do…

Categories
Videos

Adam Green, 2

‘When you make a Jew God, then you make all Jews God.’ —Adam Green

Nick Fuentes and E. Michael Jones, heroes in some American racial right circles for their anti-Semitism, are exposed as the traitors they are to the West from the opening minutes of Green’s most recent video. If anyone watches that video, don’t miss what a rabbi said around the 36th minute (which reminds me of my Thursday post on Adam Green). And another orthodox rabbi says something similar around minute 44.

After minute 54 Green defends himself against Fuentes’ unfounded accusations of calling him a Jew. Even worse is to hear a Protestant pastor talk about the ‘debt we all owe the Jews’ after minute 58. This sermon by an influential pastor in the US shows why I say that Christians, traitors to their race, are more detrimental to our cause than Jews.

Best quote of the episode we hear at about 1: 12: ‘The real redpill is when you realise that Christianity is a Jewish trap, a Jewish deception.’ And at 1:34 Green says he will make another video about the anti-white campaign that is going on. Near 1:38 he responds to the chats and concludes that, if you don’t want a Jew-dominated West, you have to understand that Christianity is the cause of it.

Since I’m no longer visiting the racial right sites precisely because they don’t want to see the elephant in the room, I wonder if any of them has invited Green to any of their podcasts?

Adam Green

I just received this comment on the previous post:

Cesar, have you watched Adam Green of Know More News’ takedowns on Christianity, arguing it’s a Jewish scam? He makes many of the same points you make but in video format, posting lots of video evidence as well. If you haven’t seen him I think you’ll like his stuff [two links].

On Adam Green’s Twitter account, I clicked on the video of the pinned tweet and I’m looking at this video. I am liking that Green sees Christianity as an extension of JQ (I wish white nationalists would pay attention to this guy).

I think tonight I’ll watch the rest of the video…

11:30 pm. I’ve watched it. In another of Green’s videos we can even see several rabbis confirming it!
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Update 18 January

See my exchange with JR1C in the comments section. I’ll be watching Green’s videos. As JR1C says: they are a perfect complement to what we’ve been saying here with purely Aryan sources (e.g. Evropa Soberana’s literary legacy).

But with this corroboration from the orthodox rabbis themselves of our thesis, that Christianity is a psyop created by 1st-century rabbis, the support for our main thesis has been strengthened.

For those unfamiliar with what we have said here on the subject, see my quotations from David Skrbina’s book.

Categories
Evil Sexual "liberation"

American sexual psychoses

Translated and excerpted from an article by a German:

With the current draft of the Self-Determination Act, anyone who uses the wrong (old) first name (dead-naming) a person can be fined 2,500 €. This is how the law wants to enforce the use of the new pronouns, because whoever wants to be politically correct here [in Germany] must ask every interlocutor about the current sexual orientation before naming. Where does this fixation on intimate practices come from?

It is part of the core cultural substance of Puritanism. When the Puritans invaded North America, they found open sexuality among the Amerinds, just as the Victorians found among the Indians, which had its own spaces for homosexual or transsexual phenomena—the Indians still know the subculture of the Hijra. This uninhibited interaction confirmed the Puritans in their idea that the savages, like the ancient pagans, were possessed by the devil and were morally depraved. The Puritan colonial rulers immediately enacted their infamous sodomy laws, which of course also applied to the indigenous population.

Based on the English Buggery Act, they declared all sexual acts that did not serve the purpose of procreation to be a criminal offence, regardless of the sex of the participants, and intensified the punishments to monstrous levels: onanism, anal and oral sex were massive crimes. In the ‘freest country in the world,’ anyone who let his wife suck him off went to jail and was dispossessed. If he had sex with a rear-entry position, the God-fearing Christians would hang him from the nearest tree. Both men and married couples who practised anal intercourse were hanged. Unlike murder, the priesthood wasn’t exempted from the death penalty. The offender’s property became the property of the state.

Pennsylvania, for example, explicitly criminalized fellatio, and Massachusetts extended criminalization to lesbians, who were flogged Taliban-style. So it goes queerly through all the states. In the New Haven Law Code of 1656 hell was declared heaven. In Puritan-woken politics lesbians were threatened with the death penalty for the first time.

For centuries, this monstrous punitive and religious practice produced uptight, guilt-ridden subjects ready to atone and submit… The name of the Protestant sect of the Quakers is derived from this trembling out of fear of God. The clinical picture of anxiety neurosis includes a pronounced avoidance behaviour. Thus, evangelicals today still don’t want to have anything to do with the ‘dirty stuff’ of sexuality…

The brief period of more liberal normalcy between the 1970s and 2000s is now coming to an end. Woke sex is picking up the old thread, and it is anything but free. It is as neurotic, guilt-ridden, and defensive as the old one. Men are afraid to be alone in an elevator or room with women. The woke LGBTQIA+ priesthood is obsessed with intimate practices and categorises everyone’s identity by his/her sexual behaviour. It punishes anyone who doesn’t comply with woken laws. Apple and other corporations ban their employees from flirting. On college campuses, intimacies between students must be quasi-contracted in advance. Whoever deviates from the agreement and licks first, although according to the script he should have kissed, is up for rape. Eroticism with all its ambivalences cannot and should not arise in this climate of fear…

This brings us to the centre of queer, which is also the innermost core of the Puritans. The overcoming of the flesh, and the fearful rejection of sexuality is the bond that connects LGBTQIA+ and sodomy laws. This is also their common Christian heritage: the ‘Holy Family’ is sexless. The mother Mary conceives Jesus ‘immaculate,’ that is, without sin, from God who begets sexlessly. The father Josef is not involved in his procreation. Jesus lives at home with his mother and has no erotic interest. A religion that worships a saviour whose ‘Holy Family’ is sexless and whose apostles only speak derogatorily about sexuality, already harbours in its myth of origin a deep rejection of everything sexual.

According to Paul and Augustine, sexuality and suffering entered the world with the Fall… What comes from nature, the innate, the body, is condemned. This is reminiscent of Plato, who called the ‘body the prison of the soul,’ and of the Christian, world-despising hatred of all that is natural. Writer J. K. Rowling was massively threatened for the statement, ‘If biological sex isn’t real, it erases the reality of women worldwide.’ That’s what it’s all about, the erasure of men and women and sexuality.

But one does not underestimate… the power of the United States. The Anglo-Saxons already brutally used sodomy laws as a means of domination, and wokeness is nothing more than another US revivalist movement to subjugate other peoples with the best of consciences. American colonialism, like Christianity, sets deadlines. Time is running out, and those who have not yet adopted the last insane twist of American sexual neuroticism are lagging behind.

Categories
Autobiography Christendom Evil Racial right

Editor’s preface

(pages 9-10 of the forthcoming Savitri’s book)

When Savitri Devi wrote the foreword that follows, I was seventeen and at the nadir of my life: mental hells into which my very Catholic father and his damned society had put me, as I confess in Letter to mom Medusa (see the book list on page 3). Curiously, a couple of years before that family tragedy I went to ask, in a bookshop, if they had any pro-Nazi books. An employee of the Librería de Cristal in the Cine Manacar in Mexico City, a fair-haired white man, hesitated a few seconds and informed me: ‘No’. True, that bookstore had the old Spanish translation of Mein Kampf, but what I was looking for was more recent literature.

If the worst country in all of Western history had never existed, the United States, Hitler might have won the war and, as I recount in The Grail, the last book in my autobiographical trilogy, the teenager I was would have been spared from the psychosis that two years after my visit to the bookstore would be brewing in my parents’ minds.

The book I was looking for at the age of fifteen was precisely this one that the reader now holds in his hands. I do not presume that this French-English translation is perfect. Far from it! But it seems to me that, of all the books by Savitri Devi (1905-1982), this is the one that best introduces us to the thought of this impressive woman.

If the American racial right is at a dead end, it is precisely because Americans have not had the nobility to see that only by making National Socialism their new religion can they save their race. Furthermore, unlike Hitler’s anti-Christian pantheism (cf. Richard Weikart’s Hitler’s Religion), the great failure of the pundits of the American racial right consists in not repudiating the Semitic religion of our abusive fathers. And abusive by necessity must be all those who traumatise their children with the idea of eternal torture, as I was traumatised as a teenager.

Although the hellish nature of Christianity reveals the twisted psychology of the Semitic mind, the typical anti-Semite ignores that the Jews created the New Testament for gentile consumption (cf. David Skrbina’s The Jesus Hoax). Anyone who invents a superheated torture chamber and then threatens billions of gentiles with it has a sick soul. Right after white traitor Constantine handed over the Roman Empire to his Semitic bishops (cf. Karlheinz Deschner’s Christianity’s Criminal History, also listed on page 3), the doctrine of hell became the greatest weapon of psychological terror used by Jews against whites. Ben Klassen was right on this point! And this is the kind of anti-Christian worldview I badly needed as a teenager to save me from the doctrines my father had put in my little head. Even now, so long after I abandoned Christianity, I am haunted by the idea of eternal damnation. As Gaedhal, a commenter on my website, The West’s Darkest Hour, told us by email:

If you fear a Jewish Hell, then you are controlled by Jews. I speak by experience. I know, rationally, that Hell doesn’t exist… However, more than thirty years of Catholicism means that I still believe in Hell emotionally. I still believe in Hell in my bones’ marrow. And this residual belief in Hell still has negative effects upon my psychology and behaviour. I probably have religious trauma syndrome…

Alas, the American racial right has been, since its origins, extremely addicted to Judeo-Christianity. I would even claim that white nationalism is an ideology that, at its core, functions as a gatekeeper preventing the transvaluation of our darkest values to Greco-Roman values: that is, the luminous values of Antiquity before the Semitic infection. Thus, white nationalists are actively preventing the Aryan man from freeing himself from the yoke that the Jews have created. How could we shake such a yoke from our necks?

Only Hitler saves. Savitri Devi, Hitler’s Priestess, saw this with extraordinary clarity! And the white man who does not want to recognise this is doomed to extinction.

César Tort
8 December 2022